Module 8: Critiques of ABCD

While advocates of the ABCD approach hold that ABCD offers a lot of promise and hope to communities bogged down by a history of needs-based approaches, there are several critiques of ABCD that Kretzmann and McKnight acknowledge.(1)

• Some say ABCD is a “militantly localist set of ideas”—that it does not address the “macro challenges of distributive justice or power lodged in big systems.” Kretzmann counters by saying that the ABCD approach is a necessary but not sufficient approach to address large-scale issues. The process of strategizing with an inclusive outlook—involving representatives on the block or village level in the decision-making process—is what needs to be integrated into projects and policies of large magnitude. As Kretzmann reminds, “It’s not impossible to recognize that what works on the local level can influence big system stuff.”

• Other critics say that ABCD is ignorant of the power dynamics in societies. Kretzmann asserts that this critique comes out of too narrow an understanding of what power is. From his viewpoint, the normal understanding is that power is a zero-sum game (“I get some, you lose some; workers get some, managers lose some; the government takes power, we surrender more”). Kretzmann claims, however, that a “win-win” attitude defines what works on the community level. Success does not have to be dependent on sacrifice from certain parties and acquisition by others. ABCD has produced stories in which each side gains.

• Yet more critics think ABCD’s emphasis on empowerment overshadows a necessary conversation about rights. These critics speculate that an intrinsic conflict exists between the do-it-yourself, self-sufficiency perspective and the accountability perspective. They ask, If community members are encouraged to mobilize on their own accord, find ways to creatively bypass obstacles fashioned by unfair legal structures, and pursue self-instigated sustainability, when will local, regional, and national governments ever feel pressured to adjust their policies? Kretzmann, on the other hand, thinks empowerment and leadership accountability can go hand-in-hand. If, through ABCD, citizens are sensitized to their inherent worth, they will be more likely and capable of challenging systems that jeopardize or undermine that worth.

• Lastly, another common criticism is that ABCD is too optimistic—that hope is grounded in reality, not optimism. To Kretzmann, though, this reality, for too many, is defined by deficiencies and needs. ABCD’s optimism is grounded in a belief in the great possibilities that can be imagined and the great outcomes that can materialize if the work is done to get there.

Finally, the study examining the results of projects using the ABCD approach in the UK brought up the critique that “ABCD has been difficult to evidence because they work at an individual level and so do not necessarily work with the same set of outcomes all the time.”(2) This lack of measurable outcomes can become problematic when trying to assess how successful projects using ABCD actually are at achieving their goals. It can also lead to obstacles in obtaining funding and grants since both often require the projects identify measurable outcomes and results.

Footnotes

(1) Kretzmann, John P. Class Lecture. “The ABCD Approach & Temporary Volunteer Projects.” Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. June 2009.

(2) Harrison, Rebecca, Christian Blickem, Jonathan Lamb, Susan Kirk, and Ivaylo Vassilev. “Asset-Based Community Development: Narratives, Practice, and Conditions of Possibility—A Qualitative Study With Community Practitioners.” SAGE Open, (January 2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018823081.